From: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Christian Brauner" <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
"Zefan Li" <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:17:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABk29NtahuW6UERvRdK5v8My_MfPsoESDKXUjGdvaQcHOJEMvg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YH1pygTubJHh3R9m@slm.duckdns.org>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Josh, you being on the other Google team, the one that actually uses the
> cgroup interface AFAIU, can you fight the good fight with TJ on this?
A bit of extra context is in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABk29NtTScu2HO7V9Di+Fh2gv8zu5xiC5iNRwPFCLhpD+DKP0A@mail.gmail.com.
On the management/auditing side, the cgroup interface gives a clear
indication of which tasks share a cookie. It is a bit less attractive
to add a prctl interface for enumerating this.
Also on the management side, I illustrated in the above message how a
thread would potentially group together other threads. One limitation
of the current prctl interface is that the share_{to, from} always
operates on the current thread. Granted we can work around this as
described, and also potentially extend the prctl interface to operate
on two tasks.
So I agree that the cgroup interface here isn't strictly necessary,
though it seems convenient. I will double-check with internal teams
that would be using the interface to see if there are any other
considerations I'm missing.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:30 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> My suggestion is going ahead with the per-process interface with cgroup
> extension on mind in case actual use cases arise. Also, when planning cgroup
> integration, putting dynamic migration front and center likely isn't a good
> idea.
tasks would not be frequently moved around; I'd expect security
configuration to remain mostly static. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding
your emphasis here?
If you feel the above is not strong enough (ie. there should be a use
case not feasible with prctl), I'd support that we move forward with
the prctl stuff for now, since the cgroup interface is independant.
Thanks,
Josh
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-20 1:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 13:10 [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 1/9] sched: Allow sched_core_put() from atomic context Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/9] sched: Implement core-sched assertions Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Trivial core scheduling cookie management Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 20:04 ` Josh Don
2021-04-02 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 4/9] sched: Default core-sched policy Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:31 ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched: prctl() core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-18 3:52 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 6/9] kselftest: Add test for core sched prctl interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 7/9] sched: Cgroup core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-02 0:34 ` Josh Don
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 8/9] rbtree: Remove const from the rb_find_add() comparator Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched: prctl() and cgroup interaction Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-03 1:30 ` Josh Don
2021-04-06 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-04 23:39 ` [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Tejun Heo
2021-04-05 18:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-06 14:16 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-18 1:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-19 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:45 ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-06 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-06 16:08 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-07 18:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:50 ` Michal Koutný
2021-04-07 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-08 13:25 ` Michal Koutný
2021-04-08 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 0:16 ` Josh Don
2021-04-19 11:30 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-20 1:17 ` Josh Don [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CABk29NtahuW6UERvRdK5v8My_MfPsoESDKXUjGdvaQcHOJEMvg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).